The real “tell” in all this is that the major parts of the ACA are Republican ideas. They hate ACA because they’re racists plain and simple. And lefties hate it because, well, it’s Republican legislation.

Please explain how it’s Republican legislation.

The individual mandate and the idea of exchanges both started as Republican ideas. I got my information straight for the horses mouth…it was Obama himself who when the thing was still going through congress literally said at a news conference words to the effect: I don’t understand why this is so hard to get through, these are Republican ideas, I got from Republicans when I was in Congress.

If that’s true, and I have a hard time thinking it is, why are Republicans so adamantly against even those provisions of the ACA?

Are you calling them Republican ideas because they were diacussed at bi-partisan sessions?

It still doesn’t explain Republicans’ refusal to support any part of the ACA or to come up with a better plan. Their “better” plan is apparently to keep the status quo, which serves the greater population badly or not at all, keeps a tremendous burden on the medical community and costs more than the ACA would. I have yet to hear Republicans create or support any kind of plan that attempts to fix the problems of the present profit-driven and unworkable system. They’ve had years to propose something, yet they have done nothing but vote against every Democratic proposal.

Palin’s original “death panel” comment was an expression of economist Thomas Sowell’s observation that putting the government in charge of healthcare inevitably puts the government in charge of who gets treatment, who doesn’t, and what kind of treatment they receive. The media conveniently dropped the context….

Yes, what an observation!
As we can clearly see in this instance, putting the government in charge ensures that everybody gets treatment.
I believe the doctor usually decides what kind of treatment the patient receives.
Actually every time government gets involved, more people get medical treatment. Medicare, Medicaid, ACA.
I guess the media dropped the context of this…

The government should also step in and decide where frivolous, redundant, and impractical treatments exist.
Then they should slowly work with medical professionals to curb this inefficiency over time.

Signature

Row row row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

The real “tell” in all this is that the major parts of the ACA are Republican ideas. They hate ACA because they’re racists plain and simple. And lefties hate it because, well, it’s Republican legislation.

Please explain how it’s Republican legislation.

The individual mandate and the idea of exchanges both started as Republican ideas. I got my information straight for the horses mouth…it was Obama himself who when the thing was still going through congress literally said at a news conference words to the effect: I don’t understand why this is so hard to get through, these are Republican ideas, I got from Republicans when I was in Congress.

If that’s true, and I have a hard time thinking it is, why are Republicans so adamantly against even those provisions of the ACA?

They’re not. A health care exchange, per se, is just like the free market. But the ACA’s exchanges are not a true free-market solution. The ACA stipulates a narrow range of coverage, including making maternity coverage mandatory. Are you a single male in your 60s? You need maternity coverage. Why? Because the government says so.

It still doesn’t explain Republicans’ refusal to support any part of the ACA or to come up with a better plan.

Many of us think that tort reform, allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines and encouraging a much-increased use of HSAs (hopefully to the point of diminishing the third-party payment problem) would serve as a better plan. Those three ideas address three of the biggest contributing factors to high insurance costs. The primary method the ACA uses is to get other people to pay for stuff. That’s great if you’re not the other people.

Their “better” plan is apparently to keep the status quo, which serves the greater population badly or not at all, keeps a tremendous burden on the medical community and costs more than the ACA would.

The plan is not the status quo, though contrary to what you allege the status quo is less expensive than the ACA.

I have yet to hear Republicans create or support any kind of plan that attempts to fix the problems of the present profit-driven and unworkable system. They’ve had years to propose something, yet they have done nothing but vote against every Democratic proposal.

All those European countries and Canada, even Cuba (I believe) which do have universal health care just made all that stuff up or did they make it work? And if it works for them, why can it not work in the US. Who is opposing the implementation and gradual refinement of settled law? It surely is not the Dems.

Signature

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.W4U

Bryan says that the answer to our healthcare problems can be solved with
Tort Reform, Health Savings Accounts, and letting insurance sell across state lines.
None of those actually enable anyone to get healthcare.

Tort Reforms do nothing to enable people to get healthcare. That’s not even related in any way to ensuring everybody gets
healthcare.

Health Savings Accounts? What’s that? That’s basically telling people to save money for doctor or hospital visits.
I hope everybody has the capability to save lot’s of money. I can imagine many people’s savings accounts being wiped out by
broken leg.

Selling Insurance across state lines? Sounds like a provision for business related matters in the insurance industry.
It doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with ensuring everyone gets healthcare.

Signature

Row row row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

All those European countries and Canada, even Cuba (I believe) which do have universal health care just made all that stuff up or did they make it work?

It works, after a fashion. You get health care if you live long enough in the queue, since shortages are one of the traditional bottlenecks with third-party payment where price ceilings exist. Slow innovation is another drawback, but that’s less of a problem if you can borrow innovation from a neighbor (Canada conveniently has such a neighbor on its southern border).

All those European countries and Canada, even Cuba (I believe) which do have universal health care just made all that stuff up or did they make it work?

It works, after a fashion. You get health care if you live long enough in the queue, since shortages are one of the traditional bottlenecks with third-party payment where price ceilings exist. Slow innovation is another drawback, but that’s less of a problem if you can borrow innovation from a neighbor (Canada conveniently has such a neighbor on its southern border).

I get a kick out of listening to MSNBC then FOX. One side reports how many tens of thousands have signed up already and many who are very happy with what they got; the other side reports the stories of people who said they would pay more and get less. One side reports death panels, the other side reports end of life counseling. One side has anecdotal stories about how efficient and effective the Canadian system was for them; the other has anecdotal stories about how slow and ineffective the Canadian system was for them.

I wonder if in a couple of years we’ll be having people say about ACA the equivalent of the TV scene where the old woman at one of the first Tea Parties rallies said something like, “Get the government out of my life, and don’t touch my Medicare”?

I wonder if in a couple of years we’ll be having people say about ACA the equivalent of the TV scene where the old woman at one of the first Tea Parties rallies said something like, “Get the government out of my life, and don’t touch my Medicare”?

Occam

You mean “history” based on unverified legend?

There’s a good chance. You already believe that an early tea party rally featured a lady opposing government involvement in her Medicare (either that or your spinning the legend yourself, though I’m eager to offer the benefit of the doubt).

No it’s not typical. I have addressed your content in the preceding couple of pages.
I addressed your tort reform, MSA and Insurance regulations bit.
I addressed your insistence that the deficit is a reason why we should allow people to go without health insurance.
There’s a few things right there.

Let’s take MSAs again.
Who’s going to put the money in all of those accounts?
If it’s the employer or the government guess who the onus will fall on for telling people how they can spend the money?
Everybody BUT the account holder. The doctors, the hospitals, the government, the employer etc.
So you just end up replacing the insurance companies with another 3rd party bureaucracy.

Nobody is going to stand for MSAs that only pay partial costs. Many people are not going to voluntarily put money in an MSA.
I’ll stop there.

Signature

Row row row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Those are your ideas.
Please explain how MSAs will work.
Perhaps you meant they could be another layer of bureaucracy to supplement insurance?
You weren’t too clear on how MSAs will work.
Or do MSAs just appeal to you because they seem like an example of personal accountability and responsibility?
Maybe because it gives the illusion that people are paying for their healthcare with their own money?
Because you think somehow that a bureaucracy would be lessened with that system?
There is always going to be a bureaucracy.
Forget all that though….just address how MSAs will work in your book.

Signature

Row row row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!